Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe

I don't want evidence that says that maybe the cosmos isn't as old as 13.7 billion years, nor do I want evidence that suggests the possibility of a younger earth than one that's 4 billion years old. I want direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old. And I'm keeping it to cosmological/astronomical evidence, since that's most all I have the capacity to discuss.

So, for example, a possibly changing speed of light is NOT good evidence for this thread, since it only suggests that maybe the universe isn't as old as we currently think it is -- it's not direct evidence for a young earth. I'd offer a similar example of good evidence, but, well, I don't really think it exists.

I'll be back in about 10 hours to check back here; happy thanksgiving, y'all.

I don't want evidence that says that maybe the cosmos isn't as old as 13.7 billion years,

That is a little exacting. It is not enough to falsify billions of years? That seems to counter accepted scientific process. If there is evidence that allows for a universe less than billions of years old, that seems a reasonable argument because evolution requires billions. If there is evidence the universe is less than 1million years old, is that not evidence more likely to support 10,000 years than support billions?Parameters are fair, but they must be within reason.

I want direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old. And I'm keeping it to cosmological/astronomical evidence, since that's most all I have the capacity to discuss.

But, I'll play along. Your intro implies you have some knowledge in this area. You have the advantage then. I'll try to keep up.

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this Ã¢â‚¬Å“the winding-up dilemma,Ã¢â‚¬Â which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same Ã¢â‚¬Å“winding-upÃ¢â‚¬Â dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called Ã¢â‚¬Å“density waves.Ã¢â‚¬Â1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space TelescopeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhirlpoolÃ¢â‚¬Â galaxy, M51.2

That is a little exacting.Ã‚Â It is not enough to falsify billions of years?Ã‚Â That seems to counter accepted scientific process.Ã‚Â If there is evidence that allows for a universe less than billions of years old, that seems a reasonable argument because evolution requires billions.Ã‚Â If there is evidence the universe is less than 1million years old, is that not evidence more likely to support 10,000 years than support billions?Parameters are fair, but they must be within reason.

My point was for the "maybe" -- e.g. the speed of light argument in the other thread isn't good evidence for a young universe, since just saying that we have no way of knowing what c was in the past doesn't imply anything for how old the universe actually is -- all it says is that we can't really know.

Also, the age of the universe isn't a matter of 13.7 billion years or 6 thousand years; there's a lot of possible ages in between there too.

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this Ã¢â‚¬Å“the winding-up dilemma,Ã¢â‚¬Â which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same Ã¢â‚¬Å“winding-upÃ¢â‚¬Â dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called Ã¢â‚¬Å“density waves.Ã¢â‚¬Â1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space TelescopeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhirlpoolÃ¢â‚¬Â galaxy, M51.2

I wasn't familiar with this objection, and google only provided one "evolutionist" response, which seems reasonable enough to me:

How many falsehoods can they have in a couple of paragraphs?

1) Stars in a galaxy actually move the same speed, the ones near the center and the ones near the edge have the same velocity.

2) "Evolutionists" (whatever that means) don't call this winding up a dilemma because the galaxies don't actually wind up because the arms which you're basing this on are constantly fading in and out with star development.

Spiral arms are more visible than the rest of the galaxy because they contain rich star-forming regions. The actual distribution of matter in a galaxy is much more uniform than the arms would imply - we see the arms because they contain young super-massive stars.

These stars have a life span of 10 million or so years. Spiral arms fade out as these massive stars die and as new star-forming regions emerge which in turn because of the angular momentum (not different velocities of stars) wrap around a galaxy - but they never wind up.

I also don't necessarily buy Humphreys' assertion that after a few hundred million years all the stars should bunch up into a disc shape -- I'd need actual data on how fast the stars are moving and dependent on distance, and probably a computer simulation or mathematical model on how things should turn out given those observations. As it is, it seems as though Humphreys just pulled the "hundreds of millions of years" out of thin air.

1) Stars in a galaxy actually move the same speed, the ones near the center and the ones near the edge have the same velocity.

I'm gonna cherry pick a bit here but it seems that if the section I took is not true then the rest is unreliable.

All the stars travel at the same speed? Rediculous. Even if I accept (I don't) that all stars somehow are born to some specialized universal program that dictates all stars begin life at X velocity. The stars are all subject to differing circumstances; location within their galaxy, orbital bodies causing drag, other suns and gravity wells. The stars do not travel at only one constant velocity, whether calculated relatie to each other or relatvie to a specific point in space.

I'm gonna cherry pick a bit here but it seems that if the section I took is not true then the rest is unreliable.Ã‚Â

All the stars travel at the same speed?Ã‚Â Rediculous.Ã‚Â Even if I accept (I don't) that all stars somehow are born to some specialized universal program that dictates all stars begin life at X velocity.Ã‚Â The stars are all subject to differing circumstances; location within their galaxy, orbital bodies causing drag, other suns and gravity wells.Ã‚Â The stars do not travel at only one constant velocity, whether calculated relatie to each other or relatvie to a specific point in space.

I think he was more saying something along the lines of: consider all the stars that lie on a certain circle centered at the center of the galaxy - if you take the average velocity of all of those stars, it won't depend on the size of the circle. Basically, that velocity is independent of radial distance from the center of the galaxy, although there's no doubt that there's variation here and there -- in other words, the variation that does exist isn't dependent on distance from the center.

But...regardless, looking into the matter a bit further has convinced me that he actually is wrong on this one. Looking into it further, I've also found what seems to be the accepted answer for the problem: http://en.wikipedia....ity_wave_theory. There's a few links at the bottom that show some non-theoretical evidence for the theory -- or, at least, the abstracts.

First of all this is a theory not a proven fact. Furthermore, it does not come from first principles, but is simply the latest in a series of theories designed to save the long age theoretical system from reality.

Their first sentence is a misunderstanding of scientific terminology. Secondly, not all scientific theories come from first principles, and there's no problem with that. When theories explain stuff and are experimentally verified by other stuff, it's a good theory.

While, when properly tuned, the Density Wave Theory can produce the basic spiral shape, Hubble images of Whirlpool Galaxy and others show that they are too tightly wound near the core to be explained by the Density Wave Theory. On the other hand the Windup Model predicted this tight winding perfectly.

Their references for this claim didn't make this claim, so I dunno what their source is.

This is just one of several problems with the Density Wave Theory.

The development of a theory isn't equatable to the flawed-ness of a theory.

This is gravitational dynamics with the proper assumptions made. The Windup Model also produces spontaneous spiral configurations in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics, but with fewer assumptions. It also produces the observed spiral structures from first principles, and in perfect detail.

I couldn't find what the "windup model" is anywhere. It wasn't on google and it wasn't even on the creationwiki site..

So, there is something to what Humphreys said, but it seems to be far from incontrovertible with an old universe -- and in the same way, it doesn't necessarily point to a young universe.

I tried putting it in my own words, but one David Thomas said it better:

"Comets disintegrate too quickly (maximum age: 100,000 years). Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10 to 100 thousand years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system. But Humphreys' comet theory fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. Humphreys responds to these discoveries by saying that the supposed "Kuyper Belt" [sic] doesn't help scientists because it must be supplied by the unproven Oort Cloud; and that even if what he calls the "Kuyper Belt" existed, it would exhaust itself of comets in a short time (say, a million years). But he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young."

So, basically, Humphreys is making the mistake of assuming that the comets coming close to the Sun/Earth now are the same ones that supposedly came close to here millions/billions of years ago, which there isn't good evidence for.

Sure, I guess that works. the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young."

So, basically, Humphreys is making the mistake of assuming that the comets coming close to the Sun/Earth now are the same ones that supposedly came close to here millions/billions of years ago, which there isn't good evidence for.

Correct me if I am wong but was it not the old age astronomers that first suggested that the Kuiper Belt would be supplied by the Oort Coud? Now they need it to be the other way around so they change their story. I know, theories are meant to be flexible. But why are we required to accept one (old age) astronomer over another (young age)? They both have equal ability to interpret the research. It seems we are being told one opinion is valid over the other. There is no observation to support either contention.

Correct me if I am wong but was it not the old age astronomers that first suggested that the Kuiper Belt would be supplied by the Oort Coud?

Source? I'm trying to find a site that says one way or the other but I can't.

But why are we required to accept one (old age) astronomer over another (young age)?Ã‚Â They both have equal ability to interpret the research.Ã‚Â It seems we are being told one opinion is valid over the other.Ã‚Â There is no observation to support either contention.

The intent of this thread was to ask for evidence that is clearly incompatible with an old earth/universe and directly points to a young e/u, so my intent in answering your posts hasn't been to show that an old e/u better supports observations than a young e/u -- it's only been to show that an old e/u is at least equally compatible with the observations as a young e/u. I could probably be making stronger claims than I am, but as it is it's enough. And these "evolutionist" explanations aren't unreasonable or completely spurious speculation -- the density wave theory matches current observations in our own galaxy and explains other phenomena in addition to the lack of windup in spiral galaxies, which makes it a good scientific theory. And regardless of whether or not the Kuiper belt is supplying the Oort cloud or vice versa, there's reason to believe in the Oort cloud (other than in order to save the idea of an old universe ), which would indicate that the comets we see flashing by us today aren't the same as the ones flashing by us eons ago. That is, these aren't desperate assertions made by scientists afraid of losing their entire worldview -- it's just good science.

Later we can make another thread for old universe evidence, where we can get into the opposite argument. But for now I'm just trying to show that a young universe isn't the unique conclusion to be drawn from the current evidence.

Correct me if I am wong but was it not the old age astronomers that first suggested that the Kuiper Belt would be supplied by the Oort Coud? Now they need it to be the other way around so they change their story. I know, theories are meant to be flexible. But why are we required to accept one (old age) astronomer over another (young age)? They both have equal ability to interpret the research. It seems we are being told one opinion is valid over the other. There is no observation to support either contention.

Boy. This nails exactly the feelings that were being generated as I read this thread.

Martemius, the moment you acknowledge your own faith claims, and stop trying to assert them as scientific fact over and against our faith claims, the discussion may turn reasonable. Until then, you're playing a game whether you realize it or not.

I personally don't have a problem with using and analyzing speculations, but when someone attempts to assert their own speculations as the proven truth (whether because of peer review or naturalistic assumptions) and demands that they aren't bias, (but employ heaping helpings of bias to draw their own conclusions) I find it disingenuous. I also find this to be the core of the problem and the thing that is so hard to get evolutionists to spend any valuable time focusing on. I think the ardent evolutionist in them runs the risk of disintegrating if they do entertain this problem, so it is commonly avoided.

Boy. This nails exactly the feelings that were being generated as I read this thread.

Martemius, the moment you acknowledge your own faith claims, and stop trying to assert them as scientific fact over and against our faith claims, the discussion may turn reasonable. Until then, you're playing a game whether you realize it or not.

I personally don't have a problem with using and analyzing speculations, but when someone attempts to assert their own speculations as the proven truth (whether because of peer review or naturalistic assumptions) and demands that they aren't bias, (but employ heaping helpings of bias to draw their own conclusions) I find it disingenuous. I also find this to be the core of the problem and the thing that is so hard to get evolutionists to spend any valuable time focusing on. I think the ardent evolutionist in them runs the risk of disintegrating if they do entertain this problem, so it is commonly avoided.

You must not have seen my previous post, where I quite explicitly said that I wasn't trying to present my claims as unassailable truth (i.e. "fact"). I was only trying to show the "evolutionist" conclusions as equally compatible with the presented evidence as the creationist conclusions. Not more compatible -- just equally compatible. In the context of this thread that's all I need to do.

You must not have seen my previous post, where I quite explicitly said that I wasn't trying to present my claims as unassailable truth (i.e. "fact"). I was only trying to show the "evolutionist" conclusions as equally compatible with the presented evidence as the creationist conclusions. Not more compatible -- just equally compatible. In the context of this thread that's all I need to do.

Most of the posters here will agree that either view can be supported by observation because it is to the interperator to supply reason.

Our lives are 50-100 years. Useful (exacting and reliable) observations of astronomy are 200-300 years? If the universe is <10,000 years old, those observations .03% of the duration of to universe. If it is older, then the factoring gets worse. Name any other field of research on this planet that will cliam ANY viable evidence with that low a percetage of observation.

But cosmologists and astronomers DO have evidence -- looking into the sky is equivalent to looking into the past.

Nope. We are stuck here in space. The best we can do is look at the universe from our very narrow window of time. .03% of 10,000 years. .0000000003% of 3 billion years. Do you consider that an accurate sample? Even the best telelscope can only observe the light that arrives here. They can focus the light much better, but we have to wait for the light to get here.

Consider this. Our closest neighbor, Andromeda (hope I remebered what SeeJay wrote) is 168,000 light years. Some day we will place telescopes far out in space. Some day, at the edge of our galaxy. Whe we have one there, if the entire universe beyond the Milky Way was removed the next day, we would continue to make observations of the entire universe and not know it was gone for 168,000 years. We are limited by location. Our observations are accurate, but hardly relaible yet.

Nope. We are stuck here in space. The best we can do is look at the universe from our very narrow window of time. .03% of 10,000 years. .0000000003% of 3 billion years. Do you consider that an accurate sample? Even the best telelscope can only observe the light that arrives here. They can focus the light much better, but we have to wait for the light to get here.

Consider this. Our closest neighbor, Andromeda (hope I remebered what SeeJay wrote) is 168,000 light years. Some day we will place telescopes far out in space. Some day, at the edge of our galaxy. Whe we have one there, if the entire universe beyond the Milky Way was removed the next day, we would continue to make observations of the entire universe and not know it was gone for 168,000 years. We are limited by location. Our observations are accurate, but hardly relaible yet.

But when we look at, say, the Andromeda galaxy at 168,000 light years away, we're looking at the Andromeda galaxy as it was 168,000 years ago. When we look at space, we're literally looking into the past.

Nope.Ã‚Â We are stuck here in space.Ã‚Â The best we can do is look at the universe from our very narrow window of time.Ã‚Â .03% of 10,000 years.Ã‚Â .0000000003% of 3 billion years.Ã‚Â Do you consider that an accurate sample?Ã‚Â Even the best telelscope can only observe the light that arrives here.Ã‚Â They can focus the light much better, but we have to wait for the light to get here.

Consider this.Ã‚Â Our closest neighbor, Andromeda (hope I remebered what SeeJay wrote) is 168,000 light years.Ã‚Â Some day we will place telescopes far out in space.Ã‚Â Some day, at the edge of our galaxy.Ã‚Â Whe we have one there, if the entire universe beyond the Milky Way was removed the next day, we would continue to make observations of the entire universe and not know it was gone for 168,000 years.Ã‚Â We are limited by location.Ã‚Â Our observations are accurate, but hardly relaible yet.

Well, if we had a telescope at the edge of the galaxy, and the entire universe outside our galaxy vanished then I could only assume the light would vanish with it. In that case, unless we had some sort of Star Trek technology, it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 20000 years to find out it was gone. In case your interested, the current estimate for the distance of the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years.

Anyway, I don't see how this is an argument. We'll never know this for sure, again without star trek technology, because even if someone was at the Andromeda galaxy and saw something they wanted to report, their message(assuming its traveling at c) would get here about the same time we would be seeing what they wanted to report here on Earth. Not knowing for sure is not the same as not knowing anything at all.

Source? I'm trying to find a site that says one way or the other but I can't.

I cannot find anything directly relaying one or the other.

The intent of this thread was to ask for evidence that is clearly incompatible with an old earth/universe and directly points to a young

clearly incompatible? directly points to? Those seem to be asking for proof? Are you asking me to prove something so you can claim it is impossibe to prove anything?

You know from another thread "starlight" that I don't necessarily need a universe with an appearant young age. I support the idea that many "universe clocks" do not indicate an old age. It must also be acknowledged that both sides have extremely well studied persons able to portray the evidence to their advantage. An example. There have been articles, even made it to the nightly news some days, that astronomers have found a planet orbiting a distant star that appears to have . . . Don't you ever wonder how they can evaluate another planet at all. They can't even tell us much about the planets in our system. They can only guess about the make-up of our inter system asteroids. They have not seen much of the Kuiper belt and only speculate the Oort cloud even exists. But they claim kkowledge of a planet around stars millions of distances further.

clearly incompatible? directly points to? Those seem to be asking for proof? Are you asking me to prove something so you can claim it is impossibe to prove anything?

By "clearly incompatible" I mean an observation that has no plausible, realistic, or reasonable "evolutionist" explanation. Both of the things you've mentioned so far do have very plausible explanations that constitute good science.

An example. There have been articles, even made it to the nightly news some days, that astronomers have found a planet orbiting a distant star that appears to have . . .

I believe they do this by calculating wobbles in the motion of distant stars -- wobbles that would be explained by the gravitation caused by an orbiting planet. It's not at all an unreasonable or unscientific way to do it.

By "clearly incompatible" I mean an observation that has no plausible, realistic, or reasonable "evolutionist" explanation. Both of the things you've mentioned so far do have very plausible explanations that constitute good science.I believe they do this by calculating wobbles in the motion of distant stars -- wobbles that would be explained by the gravitation caused by an orbiting planet. It's not at all an unreasonable or unscientific way to do it.

So your requirement is to find an aspect of the solar system etc. that cannot be expained in long age?